Well, it's technically for my Western Humanities class. It's my end of semester project and I decided to base it on philosophy as it evolved throughout the development of western humanities.

It is in no way intended to be an in-depth analysis of each of the philosophies/philosophers mentioned, but rather a glimpse that you can choose to pursue further if you are so inclined.

While I don't care overmuch about this presentation, I do care that the information I put out there is accurate. So what I'm getting to, in this very roundabout way, is can you check to see if the brief summaries and blurbs I put for my project are not outright wrong?

Anything that is blatantly terrible? Music annoying? Should I be more "politically correct" when discussing the theologians? I am in Oklahoma and I'm like 99% sure I've irritated my professor with my atheistic-leaning posts, my grades sure as hell reflect it.

Also, I'm just kidding about the "prepare to be awed". This is a half-assed project.

Music is a big NO.
The presentation it's too extensive, it should be concise, only there so it guides you and the audience, it's not supposed to be self explanatory. For example, you talk about the ancient greeks, you could use a conceptual map instead of plain text. With prezi, when you quote complete phrases (like the one from the Euthyphro) you can give it more importance by making it its own step and changing the font or something.

About the links, they're great, you can use them in every topic or at the end of the presentation. But if you want to use them in every topic, I suggest you make them their own step, so you can skip them quickly, and offer to give them to people if they want them, they are distracting and chances are they won't write them down, and if they really want them they'll ask.

(19-11-2013 10:20 PM)Penumbrae Wrote: While I don't care overmuch about this presentation, I do care that the information I put out there is accurate. So what I'm getting to, in this very roundabout way, is can you check to see if the brief summaries and blurbs I put for my project are not outright wrong?

It seems confused and confusing. If it is about the Western philosophical tradition there shouldn't be anything specifically about religion except in so far as it influenced that tradition. Islamic philosophy has had a miniscule influence on Western philosophy. Aristotle had a profound influence on Aquinas (and on numerous Islamic scholars) and consequently Roman Catholic theology. Aristotle's influence is still felt via proponents of virtue-based ethics, Scholasticism and classical logic but you wouldn't get the impression from your presentation. The two most important figures in classical Greek philosophy are Plato and Aristotle--Socrates is secondary them.

No sense of intellectual continuity is communicated by the presentation, e.g. Idealism-->Neo-Idealism. Major figures are missing such as Kant, Leibniz, Descarte, Locke, Berkeley, Hume. Major currents of thought such as Empiricism and Rationalism are missing. There is no mention of the people and ideas that formed classical liberal democracy (which we all take for granted). The philosophical ideas and persons that contributed to the birth of modern science are also missing. You didn't even mention Mill and Wolstencroft who pretty much created liberal feminism which provided the intellectual justification for female suffrage. There is also no recognition of the influence of philosophy on art and architecture.

The presentation is confused, disjointed and arbitrary. If you get a shit mark it's because it is a shit presentation not because of prejudice against you. If you were aiming for "half-assed" then you have reached that standard and should be happy with it.

Quote:About the links, they're great, you can use them in every topic or at the end of the presentation. But if you want to use them in every topic, I suggest you make them their own step

Making the links their own step is a much better idea. I'll fix that.

Quote:It seems confused and confusing. If it is about the Western philosophical tradition there shouldn't be anything specifically about religion except in so far as it influenced that tradition.

I understand that theology =/= philosophy, but per the rubric on how my presentation has to go, I have to pick from what is presented within my textbook. In the sections where all I have mentioned are theologians, that is because those are the only people talked about under the Philosophy sub headers within the chapter.

Quote:Kant, Leibniz, Descarte, Locke, Berkeley, Hume

None of these are mentioned in my text, therefore I can't use them. This class is Western Humanities up to the Renaissance. Wolstencroft I am not familiar with and which Mill are you talking about?

Harriet Taylor Mill (1807–1858), a philosopher and women's rights advocate
James Mill (1773–1836), a Scottish historian, economist and philosopher
John Mill (theologian) (c. 1645–1707), an English theologian and author of Novum Testamentum Graecum
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), an influential classical liberal thinker and philosopher of the 19th century, son of James Mill

Although, none of these are mentioned in my textbook at all.

Quote:No sense of intellectual continuity is communicated by the presentation, e.g. Idealism-->Neo-Idealism...Major currents of thought such as Empiricism and Rationalism are missing. There is no mention of the people and ideas that formed classical liberal democracy (which we all take for granted).

Is Neo-Idealism more of a modern/contemporary view? I did a quick google search:

another key aspect of neo-idealism
- not premised on revolution, but on bringing about fundamental reform …this
point will become clearly when we discuss the Marxist position, which is
“revolutionary” in intent
- key: neo-idealists believe that it is possible to create more just, equitable world
through meaningful reform and that such reform is necessary to lay foundation for
real peace in the world

This sounds post-Renaissance. Many of the individuals that are pulled up with this google search also seem to be from the late 19th century on.

Quote:The presentation is confused, disjointed and arbitrary.

How would I go about making it less arbitrary? From Merriam-Webster:

ar·bi·trary adjective \ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē, -ˌtre-rē\
: not planned or chosen for a particular reason : not based on reason or evidence

: done without concern for what is fair or right

Full Definition of ARBITRARY

1
: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>
2
a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority <an arbitrary government>
b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3
a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee>
b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary — Nehemiah Jordan>

Is it given the disjointed nature of the philosophers I've chosen? Is it because my understanding of their philosophies wrong and is reflected on what I've put down? Am I being biased? How can I improve?

(20-11-2013 12:33 AM)Penumbrae Wrote: Is it given the disjointed nature of the philosophers I've chosen? Is it because my understanding of their philosophies wrong and is reflected on what I've put down? Am I being biased? How can I improve?

Thanks for the input. I'll work on what's been pointed out.

Even within the contraints of the period you are confined to there are:
(a) key figures; and
(b) intellectual continuities between (a).

The presentation is arbitrary because it is ostensibly an intellectual history but is unconcerned with (a) and (b). You've presented little islands of apparently random philosophical ideas and random aspects of biographies--hence my use of the word arbitrary.

An example which you have overlooked is the connection between Aristotelianism and Scholasticism.

Also, don't be bitchy if you want help. I understand what arbitrary means and I have access to dictionaries.

(20-11-2013 01:24 AM)Chippy Wrote: An example which you have overlooked is the connection between Aristotelianism and Scholasticism.

Also, don't be bitchy if you want help. I understand what arbitrary means and I have access to dictionaries.

I honestly did not mean to come off as bitchy. I put that there mostly for myself, sorry if it came off that way. I was just confused given what I had put vs what the definitions were, but that's more because I don't have the outside perspective.

I do appreciate the input and will make the changes after I look into the things you've mentioned.